My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:45:39 PM
Creation date
9/11/2008 8:17:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Associate Planner DaInes presented the specifics of the ordinance as it relates to brightness, size <br />and duration of message. General language has been included for brightness to indicate that no <br />sign may be of such intensity of brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official <br />traffic sign, device or signal, or that distracts a motor vehicle driver. The size of dynamic display <br />is proposed to be limited to 35% of total signage allowed, or about 35 square feet for most <br />business and industrial districts. In terms of duration, staff is recommending that the sign is <br />limited to changing at no more than once per three seconds, which is what banks in the <br />community are currently following. This speed appears reasonable to allow owners enough use <br />of the messages without being distracting from flashing or scrolling. Also staff is presenting, for <br />discussion, a revision that if a business installs a functioning dynamic display sign, the use of <br />temporary signs would no longer be permitted. However, multi-tenant centers would be <br />permitted to install one temporary sign instead of three if they also have a dynamic display. <br />Associate Planner DaInes stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend <br />approval of the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated this language appears to be straight forward. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine asked if there will be impact to current signs. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes stated the impact will be minimal and businesses that were contacted <br />indicated the speed of the sign message can easily be set to different intervals. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked about the desire of businesses for a scrolling or flashing signs. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes stated she talked with two banks and they indicated that flashing is not <br />an effective way to relay their message because it is too quick to be read. The purpose of their <br />signage is to convey a message, not attract attention. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy referred to Page 15 where the definitions mention flashing signs or <br />lights and says: "other than a changeable copy sign." He asked what that means. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes explained it is defined in the sign ordinance as a sign where the <br />message has slide-out lettering that is changed manually, not electronically. She stated that <br />technology has changed so the Code definition will. be clarified to indicate it is changed <br />"manually" and not a dynamic display. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked whether it should be included if the entire face of the sign automatically <br />changes by rotation, noting that is not a manual message change. He suggested that level of <br />distinction be incorporated into the definition. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes stated staff will make that language clarification. <br /> <br />Planning Commission / July 10, 2008 <br />Page 4 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.